### Introduction The Genesis narrative of the serpent tempting Adam and Eve and their subsequent expulsion from the Garden of Eve does not seem to indicate overtly that the character known as "Satan" or "the Devil" was involved in any way. The Hebrew bible likewise does not contain any explicit passages co-identifying Satan as the serpent from the garden. However early Christians appear to have identified the Edenic serpent as Satan: **Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD), in First Apology §28:** > “For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent, and Satan, and the devil...” **Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115–185 AD), *To Autolycus* 2.28:** > “Eve…was deceived by the wicked demon, who also is called Satan, who then spoke to her through the serpent…” **Early Church Tradition (Book of the Cave of Treasures circa 4th–6th century):** > Satan “took up his abode in the serpent… and… watched for the opportunity… and… called [Eve]…” ### Question - What is the origin of this belief? - Does it pre-date Christianity? - What is the earliest written Christian document linking Satan with the serpent? Sources and views from all denominations welcome

Obviously, the temptation began only after Eve spoke with Satan. Prior to that, it seems Adam and Eve had no trouble avoiding the forbidden tree, even though it stood in the midst of the garden. At least, we have no record suggesting they felt any temptation. However, it was only after Eve's conversation with Satan that she saw the tree as attractive and its fruit as desirable for food. So, why didn’t the all-knowing God — who surely knew that Satan’s words would have triggered temptation — give them a commandment not to speak to him? EDIT: Ok, here we go again: I want to know the perspectives on this matter from the Catholicism, the Orthodoxy, and the main-stream Protestantism (which is believers in Christ who besides addressing God the Father, also address Jesus in their prayers).

I can't remember seeing paintings where Adam, Eve and the snake are depicted in paradise and the snake still having its legs. Are there paintings like that? I guess the snake must have depicted with legs in medieval paintings as it would be accurate. Links to prominent paintings of that kind would be appreciated.

Why do most Christians believe that the serpent was the devil himself directly appearing to Eve when scripture explicitly states that it was a literal snake and in this I quote the following verses to back up my claim *Genesis 3:15* >I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” **Only a created animal can have an offspring and not a spirit angel like the devil.** *Genesis 3:14* >Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. The serpent is cursed above all animals and he is cursed to crawl because he was created with legs before he was possessed. Now the Bible says this was a visible creature that Eve could see and interact with, why do most people think the serpent was the devil himself who was in spirit form and invisible to Eve? An angel possessed a donkey in the Balaam story and the donkey talked back, why is it hard to believe this was the case in the garden?

Since there isn't any text that clearly points to the spirit of Satan possessing the serpent so that he would lie to Adam and Eve and cause them to eat from the forbidden fruit, is it a possibility that the serpent could have acted on his own to deceive them? This is because the second account of the Genesis stories of creation give the serpent a unique attribute. *Genesis 3:1* >Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. It is already clear from the verse above that the snake was created stubborn by God for this very moment. Mainstream Christians assume that it was the spirit of fallen cherub Lucifer that possessed the serpent and caused the deception, but since there isn't any text in the Bible that clearly points this out, how do we know that the serpent did not act on his own to deceive them? Unless Lucifer was an appointed Cherub in the garden of Eden prior to his fall and then he would launch his attack on the creation by possessing the serpent, but it's a fact that spirits cannot possess animals. The Balaam story is that God made the donkey speak and not possess it to cause it to speak. Unless the devil had the ability to cause the serpent to speak, but where does he get the power to do that when no one had sinned in God's creation to give him that authority?

In the book of Genesis, the serpent speaks to Eve at Genesis 3:1-5. > 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field that the > LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You > must not eat from any tree in the garden?’ ” > > 2 The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of > the garden, 3 but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the > garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will > die.’ ” > > 4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent told her. 5 “For God knows that > in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be > like God, knowing good and evil.” This happens in the the Garden of Eden. What scriptural basis is there for believing animals talking was normal before Adam and Eve left the Garden?

Genesis 3 says that the serpent addressed the woman: - Gen. 3:1 "the serpent […] said to the woman" - Gen. 3:4 "the serpent said to the woman" Gen. 3:6 is that chapter's first mention of Adam: >[…] and gave to her husband, who did eat. Do any Fathers, Doctors, or prominent exegetes argue that Adam was not present with Eve when the serpent began tempting her or that Adam was neglecting to protect Eve from the serpent, that Adam's sin was at first negligence , a sin against prudence?

We know there is only suppositions that Satan was probably the "snake", but nothing solid proves this. However many times, even today, we say "that bitch slapped me", or that "dirty rat" hit me on the head... and so forth, neither of which assume we are speaking of a dog or a rat respectively. There is no reason ignore this of the "snake" in Eden, as no scripture says otherwise. Keep in mind there are many things "cultural that are left out when books of the Bible were written. We may say "I drove to the grocery store", yet what is the word "drove?" How fast? etc.. But we leave that out in the paper, because it is obvious. This may be true of the Serpent. Further more you can see there is a hint in Gen 3:14, that whoever/whatever Eve was conversing with, was already UPRIGHT - standing, or flying if we are dealing with Nephilim. God cursed "it" to the ground on "its" belly. To eat dirt for the rest of "its" life. so it is quite possible that the dirty rat conned Eve. I have not found any scripture that says This is Satan, Are the churches teaching it literal? If so why?

In Numbers 21:4-9, Moses makes a bronze serpent on a stick to heal the Hebrews' snake bites, as per God's instructions. They don't worship it, but they are to look at it in order to live. Why did God order a statue of a serpent knowing very well that a serpent is used to refer to Satan himself(Genesis 3:1)??? Help me understand the connection between the serpent used by God and the one symbolising His adversary...

In an article by Ben Heath titled [_Sex Affair in the Garden of Eden_](http://christianovercomers.com/blog/2011/06/03/sex-affair-in-the-garden-of-eden/) , he claims that the sin for which God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden was sexual intercourse with the serpent. Heath goes on to say that Cain and his descendants are literally physical descendants of the serpent, who he interprets as Satan. The doctrine seems to hold a central place in his other teachings. Consider [2 Corinthians 11:2-3:](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11) >For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. Heath claims that when Paul uses words translated to _deceived_ and _beguiled_ in this and other verses, a better translation is the word _seduced_, in the sense of tempting to sexual immorality. In addition, [this website](http://www.serpent-seed.com) offers an apology of the doctrine, which it calls the _serpent seed doctrine_, saying: >You see, those who denounce the Serpent seed teaching as heresy not only deny the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, but they also miss out on the first prophecy of the entire Bible. According to mainstream Evangelical Protestant denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, the Assemblies of God, the Presbyterian Church, and the Episcopalian Church, is the serpent seed doctrine a valid interpretation of Genesis 3 and subsequent verses in the New Testament about Eve and the serpent?

This question raised after my other question here Genesis 3:15 > **I will put enmity between you and the woman**, and between your > offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall > bruise his heel. To me (as a non-Christian) the bold sentence in the verse above leads to a conclusion that there is no enmity (yet) between this being and Adam&Eve before the event in Genesis 3. In other words, at the first existence of this being in Eden, he is not a bad being (yet) where Adam&Eve need not to be cautious of this being. Since that is just a non-Christian personal opinion, that's why I would like to know if there is any Christian Church Denomination which think the same. ---------- After I do some "deeper digging" in the internet, I found the below quotation from this site Quote-1 > Archbishop Ussher, the great 17th-century Bible scholar, placed > **Satan’s fall on the tenth day of the first year**, which is the Day of > Atonement Reading it directly (without reading the original Ussher's book), it seems Ussher has the same thinking with me which is before Genesis 3 event, the first existence of this being in Eden (together with Adam and Eve) is not in a fallen state. So I search more, and found James Ussher "The Annals of the World" and below is his text Quote-2 > **The Devil envied God's honour and man's obedience**. He tempted the > woman to sin by the serpent. By this he got the name and title of the > old serpent To me, the bold sentence is not easy because Ussher use a word "devil" where this word already implied in a negative sense, an evil being. This leads me to two option : A. because he is A Devil, an evil being, a fallen state being (in the beginning of his first existence in Eden) that's why he envied God's honour and man's obedience B. because (later on after his first existence in Eden) he envied God's honour and man's obedience , that's why he is called a devil, an evil being. To me, it seems Quote-1 choose the point-B.
In B, the "fit" paraphrased of Quote-2 is become like this
Quote-3 > **The being** envied God's honour and man's obedience. He tempted the woman to sin by the serpent. By this he got the name and title of the > old serpent **and called a devil.** I still can not decide what Usher's meant in his sentences in Quote-2.
Anyway, my original question is still apply :).

I've read two books that mentioned that the serpent in Genesis 3:1 which tempted Eve could have been rendered as a "shining one" or being of light rather than a serpent. Is there really a basis for this alternate view, or is it questionable scholarship? 1. The Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible has a note on this in the margin for Ezekiel 28:13-15, saying that the serpent signifies "a shining one." 2. The Companion Bible has a 2-page appendix devoted to the serpent of Genesis 3. Seems to imlpy that it was not a literal serpent that spoke, but the character of the one who spoke and of whom Eve respected.

This seems to be the generally accepted belief, and it's taught to children in Sunday School in many churches, but is there biblical basis for it? Here's the actual text: > 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the > Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye > shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto > the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But > of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath > said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. > 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For > God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be > opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the > woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to > the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the > fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; > and he did eat. > >—Genesis 3:1-6 What biblical basis is there for this belief? I did see another question addressing Satan being referred to as a serpent a lot in the bible, but then there are verses like John 3:14, where Jesus makes an analogy where he is a serpent: > And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the > Son of man be lifted up: People may say that this is a trivial and unimportant question, but I think it has serious implications on whose fault sin is. If it's Satan, who is still here today, maybe it is as some churches make it out to be, that the only reason anyone sins is because of Satan, and that if he were to be stricken from existence, we would no longer sin. If it wasn't Satan, that leaves open the possibility of us actually voluntarily sinning, back then and today. Thanks in advance :) (This is the 6,000th question :))

Catholicism has pretty much stated that the Genesis creation account is allegorical. The serpent talking to Eve was not an actual event, but a story. Yet I see and hear often from Christians the statement that prior to the serpent being cursed, snakes had legs. Science and evolution may claim that this is so, but if the first eleven chapters of the Bible are allegorical, why cling to the idea that snakes once had legs? What do Catholic teachings say about this? The concept of the question comes from reading this: > [3:14] Each of the three punishments (the snake, the woman, the man) has a double aspect, one affecting the individual and the other affecting a basic relationship. The snake previously stood upright, enjoyed a reputation for being shrewder than other creatures, and could converse with human beings as in vv. 1–5. It must now move on its belly, is more cursed than any creature, and inspires revulsion in human beings (v. 15). (Source: New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE), notes on Genesis chapter 3 , as found at the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)

When the Israelites complained God sent serpents to bite them. As a way to reverse the plague, Moses put a copper serpent on a pole. Upon looking at the copper serpent, the israelites would be healed from the effects of the serpent bites. I've been told this prefigures Christ in a way. The symbolism is strange indeed, because serpents always represent ... the other guy... The *Not* Jesus. How does the serpent on the pole represent Christ? Does the event have any other symbolic meanings relating to redemption?